Link Anchors - The Best Strategy

Okay, so here's my link anchor strategy.. The idea is to make it look as natural as possible when you're building links, so to acheive this I change up my anchors so they're not all the same..

Let's say that the keyword I'm targeting is Pet Food

Now let's say I'm placing 90 links onto different sites, if they all have the same anchor text Google can start to become suspicious.. so here's what I do:

-----------------------------------------------------------

I split them into thirds so 30/30/30

The first 30 links I place will have the anchor text as the KEYWORD, so:

The next 30 links will have the anchor text as EXTENDED/EXPANDED KEYWORD, so:

Then the last 30 links will have the anchor text as something RANDOM, normally, 'Click Here' or 'Check this out' Or just the plain URL without anchor text, so:

-----------------------------------------------------------

The reason behind this is that Google likes sites that look like normal people are linking to them (not a bunch of marketers). This way of dividing up the anchor text should make the links look more natural (as though real people have put them up) and in turn will give you a better chance of staying on Google in a good position.

I want to hear your thoughts and views on this anchor strategy. I do this for all of my link building. For example I put this mix into my Web2.0 and I also use further down, for example when I'm doing article marketing or Scrapebox blasts etc..

What I'm currently thinking is that I may be able to change the ratios to something like this:

40% Keywords, 40% Extended Keywords and 20% Random URL/Click Here

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and views!

I do the same thing.

I rotate my keywords every time I post a link. And I also do the "Click Here" method as well

Nice share

EG
Keyword: Free backlinks
Anchors;
For Free Backlinks click here!
[I found this] Great site giving away free backlinks [...]
[I was searching around and got] Free backlinks from this site
Use this link to get free backlinks

ETC

It's good to use 'Click here' etc as anchors, but people use a hell of alot of variables when linking to stuff, but as long as your keyword is in the anchor text, it should still give some benefit, no matter how much text is used as an anchor.

Based on my sites rankings people are really over thinking things with the whole varying anchor text drama.

Gary Becks said:

Based on my sites rankings people are really over thinking things with the whole varying anchor text drama.

Click to expand...

Your rankings may be good but I feel this strategy will protect against 'panda' type updates in the future..

Please share your anchor text method with us if you have a moment

Good tips! Yes, google likes natural links.

Definitely a good idea to split up what keywords you use with anchor text. I often find, though, that the last third (random phrases) aren't necessary for many niche campaigns. After all, there are usually a few solid short tail phrases that accurately describe your niche. I generally just use a combination of short/long tail keyword phrases that are associated with the niche (even better if the page they link to is specific to that keyword phrase), and don't find it necessary to use phrases totally unrelated to the niche.

I would be curious to know how much weight SEs place on anchor text not being too repetitive.

I should also note that if your target keyword is "pet food" and let's say for some reason you couldn't use other variations of that phrase (because it's part of the company's name, for example), then it would be very useful to either set up anchor text with random phrases or even use anchor text that's simply naturally part of a sentence (i.e. "If you care to check out my site, you'll find <a href=link>a lot of useful info</a>.")

Ghoast said:

Your rankings may be good but I feel this strategy will protect against 'panda' type updates in the future..

Please share your anchor text method with us if you have a moment

Click to expand...

I pretty much outlined it in another thread. But I basically just vary capitalization, singular /plural , hyphenated/non hyphenated , spacing , and I throw in an addon keyword here and there but only when I can find
Keywords that I would actually care to rank for.

What I NEVER do is use generic anchors like click here , my website , etc..

IMO if another panda like algo change is what anyone is worried about the last thing id want to do is use those kind of anchors as they are pretty much synonymous with thin affiliate sites.

in my tier 1 links i always use long tailed. tier 2 (scrapebox and xrumer) i am using both: random anchors and long tailed. very nice post. noobs should know about this.

Gary Becks said:

I pretty much outlined it in another thread. But I basically just vary capitalization, singular /plural , hyphenated/non hyphenated , spacing , and I throw in an addon keyword here and there but only when I can find
Keywords that I would actually care to rank for.

What I NEVER do is use generic anchors like click here , my website , etc..

IMO if another panda like algo change is what anyone is worried about the last thing id want to do is use those kind of anchors as they are pretty much synonymous with thin affiliate sites.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't actually agree with the last part here, If I was a random person who just wanted to share a great website with a friend I think that I would probably just put a generic anchor such as - randomsite.com or 'click here buddy' - What I definitely would NOT do is put the link in a keyword anchor.. Like if I was recommending a pop music website I would not say, ' Hey buddy I think you should definitely check out this pop music website'
I would just say, 'check out this pop music site, link'

I feel this is what most people would actually do.. and I think that anchor keywords are actually much more synonymous with aff sites

Every Man had their own Instinct on doing their promotion, anyway i like your way and we have our own idea.

Ghoast said:

Hmm, I don't actually agree with the last part here, If I was a random person who just wanted to share a great website with a friend I think that I would probably just put a generic anchor such as - randomsite.com or 'click here buddy' - What I definitely would NOT do is put the link in a keyword anchor.. Like if I was recommending a pop music website I would not say, ' Hey buddy I think you should definitely check out this pop music website'
I would just say, 'check out this pop music site, link'

I feel this is what most people would actually do.. and I think that anchor keywords are actually much more synonymous with aff sites

Click to expand...

That's fair , end of the day it's all theory. The only fact here that is not up for debate is that non anchored links do NOT rank websites.

What's also a fact (at least in my book based on experience and testing) is that there are no penalties associated with not using generic anchors. If you feel different I am more than happy to change my opinion provided you can show proof that there are.

Gary Becks said:

That's fair , end of the day it's all theory. The only fact here that is not up for debate is that non anchored links do NOT rank websites.

What's also a fact (at least in my book based on experience and testing) is that there are no penalties associated with not using generic anchors. If you feel different I am more than happy to change my opinion provided you can show proof that there are.

Click to expand...

Do we both agree that using ONLY your keywords is dangerous though?

This is why I posted this thread, I feel that perhaps I'm giving too many links away using 33% as generic anchors.. I think I may change my strategy to only 5 or 10% generic.. but I do still feel there should be some generic

So just to clarify, what mix are you doing between your exact keywords and your extended/expanded/different punctuation?

Ghoast said:

Do we both agree that using ONLY your keywords is dangerous though?

This is why I posted this thread, I feel that perhaps I'm giving too many links away using 33% as generic anchors.. I think I may change my strategy to only 5 or 10% generic.. but I do still feel there should be some generic

So just to clarify, what mix are you doing between your exact keywords and your extended/expanded/different punctuation?

Click to expand...

Here is an example of what I do.

PHP:

[url=http://backlinksite url . com]{Backlinks|Backlinks|Back links|backlinkS|backlinks|BACKLINKS|BaCkLinKs|BACKLINKs|BaCkLink|back-link|Back-Link|high pr backlinks|quality backlinks|buy backlinks|backlinks for sale|BaCKliNks}[/url]

Click to expand...

This is perfectly fine variation and there's really no need for anything more IMHO .

Hasn't failed me yet.

Gary Becks said:

The only fact here that is not up for debate is that non anchored links do NOT rank websites.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this statement Gary...

While non keyword matched anchors may not help specifically with keyword-authority, they still add overall Backlink juice and reduce the amount of keyword-related backlinks needed. I could prove this to you a thousand times over with my test result data over thousands of domains. They also pass authority from 2.0s and other sites that carry it. Plus they help avoid over optimisation when you're building large volumes of links.

The click here type link is the most natural link since the dawn of the Internet, and is not a fingerprint of thin affiliate sites. It is a fingerprint of most large corporate sites, which google loves. Take ANY generic term and google it's exact match - and what will you find? A bunch or large corporates.

I use nearly 1000 variations on generic terms, together with a mixture of branded and URL anchors to make up 33% of all link building.

The next 33% are extended keyword anchors, and the final 33% are mixed exact match anchors.

This is the strategy I teach in UberToolz, and it's the strategy that many of my personal tools implement for me. It's also the strategy that I've teaching here on BHW since 2010.

I've used this strategy since 2005 and have NEVER been hit with a single slap or loss of rankings on any of my own domains, of which i currently own around 1000.

I do respect your opinions on the subject, but I think you may be misreading the signals here.

Thanks for the great discussion. Someone else here has named it Naturalisation and it is a good strategy staying under the radar.

jascoken said:

I completely disagree with this statement Gary...

While non keyword matched anchors may not help specifically with keyword-authority, they still add overall Backlink juice and reduce the amount of keyword-related backlinks needed. I could prove this to you a thousand times over with my test result data over thousands of domains. They also pass authority from 2.0s and other sites that carry it. Plus they help avoid over optimisation when you're building large volumes of links.

The click here type link is the most natural link since the dawn of the Internet, and is not a fingerprint of thin affiliate sites. It is a fingerprint of most large corporate sites, which google loves. Take ANY generic term and google it's exact match - and what will you find? A bunch or large corporates.

I use nearly 1000 variations on generic terms, together with a mixture of branded and URL anchors to make up 33% of all link building.

The next 33% are extended keyword anchors, and the final 33% are mixed exact match anchors.

This is the strategy I teach in UberToolz, and it's the strategy that many of my personal tools implement for me. It's also the strategy that I've teaching here on BHW since 2010.

I've used this strategy since 2005 and have NEVER been hit with a single slap or loss of rankings on any of my own domains, of which i currently own around 1000.

I do respect your opinions on the subject, but I think you may be misreading the signals here.

Click to expand...

I made a clear statement and I think you may be misreading it. Bottom line - you CAN'T rank a site using non anchored links.

I appreciate your opinions, as I do the op's - but at the end of the day the only thing I can go on is experience. I have been ranking sites waaay before 2010 without using any of the methods you outlined and haven't been slapped at all.

Far as I am concerned the approach you guys are taking is just an over cautious approach to link building and really doesn't have any long term benefit.

Of course this is just IMO as your statements are. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty of it we should do a case study so we can all have some facts to go on.

Pick a keyword and we both grab some EMD TLD's and each use our own methods to rank the sites and see what happens.

Other than that every thing is mere opinion or just "facts" based on our own personal experiences.

You cant either do very good anchor-ing only keywords... natural links dont come that way... poeple will also link to you using keywords like "this link", "this site" etc

Gary Becks said:

I made a clear statement and I think you may be misreading it. Bottom line - you CAN'T rank a site using non anchored links.

Click to expand...

I don't want to keep going round in circles on this, but this is completely incorrect...

I presume your syntax to mean 'non keyword-anchored links' because you obviously can't have a constructive link without any kind of anchor. Unless you haven't stated yourself correctly; then your statement is 100% wrong.

Ranking isn't only determined by keyword anchors; it's determined by all the links to a page. The anchor is one piece of the puzzle, but the page title and on-page factors are others. Surely you must have experience of getting rankings for keywords that you haven't done any keyword SEO for, purely because the content is keyword rich? I find it astonishing that you believe that only keyword-based anchors will provide benefit. What about the millions of high PR comment links that work; with names as their anchor - not keywords? I could continue giving examples, but the point is moot.

I've ranked hundreds of thousands of pages on massive networks that I've built through nothing but URL and generic anchors. Keyword anchors help hugely of course, but they need to be diluted into a wider mix. And the point here is not that keyword anchors aren't better, of course they are, but that your supposition states they are the ONLY way of ranking; and anything else is wasted effort.

I have literally thousands of sites that I could prove this with; but you keep on stating this information like it was fact. And of course, I'm not going to publish any of mine or my hundreds of clients data.

No disrespect; but you're leading newbs astray; they'll take this to mean they can use nearly all keyword anchors (with some capitalisation changes?) and they'll be fine. This may be the case if they do a few manual links; but it won't be the case the minute they start ramping up and blasting. There are literally hundreds of posts on this forum discussing this; no 'case-studies' need to be done.

I really don't have an opinion either way on your business; but I worry that your stance will lead new people that are still learning into a habit that worked years ago; but is now much less forgiving post panda.

I strongly encourage anyone to test this for themselves in a controlled and sensible fashion so you discover the truth for yourself. True SEO is about testing, measuring and discovering your own truths.

I really don't wan't to go back and forth either , and I don't have time to anyway.

What's really funny though is you want to argue a point and don't want to take time to prove it. I gave an offer for you to do so as I am 100 % confident on my methods (seeing as I have ranked over 8 keywords in 2012 alone using them ) but your argument was this.

No disrespect; but you're leading newbs astray; they'll take this to mean they can use nearly all keyword anchors (with some capitalisation changes?) and they'll be fine. This may be the case if they do a few manual links; but it won't be the case the minute they start ramping up and blasting. There are literally hundreds of posts on this forum discussing this; no 'case-studies' need to be done.

Okay now, No disrespect to you - but this is just about the biggest oxymoron I have heard this year.

I am leading noobs astray by stating what works for me and saying that we can run tests to prove it but your defense is

This may be the case if they do a few manual links; but it won't be the case the minute they start ramping up and blasting. There are literally hundreds of posts on this forum discussing this; no 'case-studies' need to be done.

Click to expand...

1. Who is their right mind is waisting time with links blasting in 2012 anyway ? Your whole SEO game is skewed right from the jump if you are even thinking of doing any kind of link blasting to your money site.
   
2. What you are saying is "Forget doing case studies and making decisions based on information that has been tested and proven to be true" " I'll just read forum posts and believe whatever someone else has posted regardless of whether or not I have tried it for myself " But I am the one leading noobs astray?

It's this kind of follow the leader mentality that has noobs complaining about not making money. Trying to read forums all day believing what "so called " gurus ( who all have an ulterior motives because they've got something their trying to sell you ) are saying instead of just getting out their and taking action so they can see what works based on actual experience.

Believe me, experience is what I am speaking from and I am not afraid to prove it by any means. You on the other hand are so the convo is over at this point as far as I am concerned. I'll gracefully bow out and let noobs believe what they want.

BTW, this thread had nothing to do with on page factors and ranking sites easily using emds and good on page SEO . Believe you me , I am not new to this either . This thread is about varying link anchors and what are the cost vs. benefits of doing so. Like I have said and will continue to say until Google shows me something different , you CAN'T rank a site with generic keyword anchors OR non anchored links AND there's very little benefit in doing so anyway as I have multiple campaign running without using any of your or the op's methods and I am ranking just fine.

Sounds to me like ( since you are doing "link blasting" ) the penalties you are trying to avoid have nothing to do with non varying anchor text at all but is rather a case of link velocity and not having a consistent number of links coming in and/or to many low quality links.

Anyhow , the invitation stands should you change your mind Sir.

Regards..